DaleTremont wrote:Seriously is there any news on this film's release date in the US? Is there even one?

IFC Films owns the US distribution rights... nothing definitive on their website right now. All I've really seen is that they plan to release it sometime in 2010 (from the press release announcing that they'd acquired the rights at TIFF).

Pacino86845 wrote: The real life dude clearly has a mischievous quality about him, something which was not at all reflected in the movie.

Wha? I thought it was an extremely mischievious, impish kinda movie, by turns hilarious and squalidly operatic. It's not trying to be Chopper at all, imo.

Yeah, like when that art teacher tells Bronson to find "the piece of you that doesn't belong in here" and he proceeds to traumatize said teacher and go "Now THAT'S a piece of me."

To Kirks's point, I don't think it glorifies Bronson at all; in fact there are a lot of instances where people try to help him and he fucks it (or them) up. I don't think it was a shallow film, if a little heavy on style (but then so was the man it describes, it seems), it's just that this kind of movie has been made a lot before. One of the few differences that I thought was interesting was that Bronson actually WANTS to be in prison, but if you're looking for something new you might be disappointed. Still, great direction and (hopefully) a star-making performance from Tom Hardy.

I'm scared to see this, just because I watched most of "Ex-Drummer" of which I LOVE, love, love the soundtrack CD, but the movie was just like watching a "Trainspotting" remake... I fear this would be the same with Bronson, but I gotta say the central performance looks very filled with flair and Kubrick comparisons are never a bad thing, and neither are the recommendors!

Even though it makes the movie feel strangely incomplete, I think the choppy narrative style would be the only way to do service to a personality as outrageously insane as Bronson's. I thought it was kind of fitting that the film would elevate style to the point that it could even overshadow the story. Bronson turned destruction into an art form, without dwelling on the motivations behind it or any of its possible implications. He's like Robert Carlysle in Trainspotting when he tosses that glass over the balcony then throws himself headfirst into the ensuing fight...except Brosnon manages to turn that into an entire life's pursuit instead of a barroom brawl.

(But don't let that Trainspotting reference stop you from checking it out, magicmonkey, it's really quite different and completely interesting in its own right.)

It is very Kubrickian, but it also seems very characteristic of Refn, while still being quite different from the other movies he's done.

Well, I saw it, and I cant give a definitive answer on what it is. But I will have a spoiler free post about it.Its jam packed with symbolism, and damn near a silent movie. Very ponderous and brooding. That may turn some people off, and regarding the violence, pretty much ALL of it is in the clip I posted above, so some may be disappointed if they want a full on gore fest (it was shocking and thrilling to see on the big screen though).

Anyway, I enjoyed it, and its slow pace really worked. Refn's interpretation of people in those times is that if they werent doing anything, they literally wouldnt be doing anything.Half the time I couldnt tell if people were alive or dead, due to their stillness, but when you are at sea surrounded by fog on a tiny boat with no food or fresh water, their aint much to do but sit still.

I dont want to say too much about what I thought it meant, at least until others have had a chance to see it. I strongly recommend it, but only if you arent of the mind that slow = pretentious. Very little exposition, but amazingly shot.

Plus, its all in english, which was a relief. I thought being a viking movie, from Denmark, I was gonna struggle watching it in a norsk cinema. But all of the vikings are played by Scots. (I smell a Prince of Persia style controversy here ).

Haha, yeah its a tough one to talk about. And it is fairly minimal, so giving more detail would kinda reveal too much I think.Im just not really fond of spoilers anymore, so I try to avoid spreading them myself if I can help it.

I found a good interview with the director, which I would recommend reading after you have seen the flick. LINK

I've literally just finished watching this, considering I would normally fall asleep watching most films this time of the night the fact that I didn't in a stark film with very little dialogue or action or even recognisable plot says a lot about how strangely captivating this little film is. it's absolutely drenched in atmosphere, has cracking sound design, breathtakingly stunning photography and an iconic performance from Mads. I'm not really sure what it was all about, there isn't exactly a load of symbolism to decipher or interpret, certainly nothing that I'm knowledgeable enough in Norse to recognise. Strangely this didn't matter to me, you could tell it made sense to the director and the characters portrayed this honestly enough that it was satisfying nonetheless.

John-Locke wrote:I've literally just finished watching this, considering I would normally fall asleep watching most films this time of the night the fact that I didn't in a stark film with very little dialogue or action or even recognisable plot says a lot about how strangely captivating this little film is. it's absolutely drenched in atmosphere, has cracking sound design, breathtakingly stunning photography and an iconic performance from Mads. I'm not really sure what it was all about, there isn't exactly a load of symbolism to decipher or interpret, certainly nothing that I'm knowledgeable enough in Norse to recognise. Strangely this didn't matter to me, you could tell it made sense to the director and the characters portrayed this honestly enough that it was satisfying nonetheless.

It looks very intriguing and completely different from what most directors would probably do with a viking tale. I really can't wait to see this one. No idea when/if it's arriving stateside though

i am up for almost any film that explores the the nature of man with any depth, and Mickleson has a real screen presence, it is just too bad that no theatre within 4 hours of me will be showing this when it is released here. the little arthouse theatre in Binghamton, about 45 minutes from me, will get it a few months later, about the same time it is released on dvd

It's a very atmospheric and spare movie and I think, as Refn says in the article, there's pressure to read more into the story than is actually there -- sort of like the Vikings' attitudes towards One-Eye himself. But it's actually pretty straightforward. Whether you find it satisfying or not is another issue, but on the plus side it is only 90 minutes (or the length of a dream cycle, the director would say). There are a lot of unresolved questions, but overall I thought it was a nice little slice of historical fiction; I particularly got a kick out of the reminder that it wasn't that long ago when people would just get in a boat and have no idea where they were going.

I finally rented this and I have now seen all of Nicolas Wingdings Refn's movies and can pronounce that he has a spotless record going into DRIVE.

I really liked this movie. It is about a one-eyed Norse mute gladiator named One-Eye (played by Mads Mikelsen) who is kept on a chain like a dog, or like Jet Li in that movie with bob Hoskins. He ultimately overthrows his owners and runs free with a little boy who does his talking for him. He then gets recruited by crusading Christians to help them take back the Holy Land. There's a pretty funny twist in the middle of the film where they get lost on their way to Jerusalem and end up in Canada.

The movie is pretty steeped in machismo and very critical of religion, or at least of Christians. However it is incredibly quiet and atmospheric. Most of it being long shots of the characters staring off into the endless wilderness or ocean. If you found NEW WORLD to be too slow or too arsty, then don't watch this, if you wanted NEW WORLD to be even slower and even more artsy, this is the film for you. It was the film for me.

Refn continues his flawless record with Drive which is sorta phenomenal. It's so well paced - the opening scene aside (itself a little master class in visual and audio editing) the looong glances, the little break by the river, and the total silence before THAT gunshot all provide space for the mood to take hold. consistent - well in it's presentation of Driver. I think the the College song lyrics being played twice sums it up - we think it's about him being a hero at the start but by, oh say the scene where the Scorpion on his jacket appear to breathe we know it's the line about him trying to be a real human being that's important. It's also pretty terrifying here and there. I can go on, about the bit with the mask or the ambiguity of the ending - I think he's dead and his dream is him driving away as Irene goes back for him, really he's dead in the car and she's too disturbed and traumatised to ever want him. But my friend reckons it's more like he does this every 5 years of so, just fucks up really bad, slaughters a bunch of people and then moves on which is actually a way better interpetation. All the performances are great but I think Carey Mulligan might top them all, the way her fingers move to her lips every time she thinks of Driver or the look she gives him after the lift - there the moments that really hammer the bullet home so to speak. Albert Brooks - what a gentleman eh? I hate bit where a bad guy kills someone really soothingly give me horrible chills.

Anyone else seen this and want to comment? Me and my friends have been talking about the film and listening to the soundtrack all weekend.

Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.

I acquired the soundtrack immediately after leaving the cinema, someone else I was speaking to online recently did exactly the same - shades of Moroder and Badalamenti all over, it's tricky to realise that neither seems to be involved - Kavinsky's Nightcall is a gripping track to open with, the first five tracks on the OST are incredible and the whole score just seems integral. It's an amazing film and I'm still gathering my thoughts on it - want to watch it again first and it hasn't gotten to general release here yet.

So despite Refn's flawed and spotty record I still went to see Drive in the cinema... it was amazing. I too have talked about it ad nauseum in real life, which is why I keep my opinion here short and sweet!

Yeh it's especialé, Refn is pretty much my favourite director at the moment, sure he's not in the realms of Kubrick or Peckinpah etc etc but he's got the potential to be every bit as good as Michael Mann or Ridley Scott. I also think he's far more interesting in terms of the themes in his films than even someone like Aronofsky.

Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.

I read the book of DRIVE and in the book the character is definately alive and well at the end of the story. The book was obviously a setup for a series because it ends like the CONAN movie telling us Driver would have many more adventures to come before he shall one day die in a Tijuana bar.

Ok I'll write a tiny bit more... I went into the movie completely fresh, I had not even seen a trailer let alone read any reviews.

Coming out of the theatre my buddy and I shared the view that a lot of elements evoked (or very subtly referenced) from iconic horror-type movies from years past.

A bunch of random thoughts and things we discussed (SPOILERS AHOY!):

-The shot of Driver wearing the stunt mask on the beach, facing down Nino - really gave me a sense of Michael Myers from Halloween-The strobe effect in the background of the same scene, with the California highway also in the background - Lost Highway/Mulholland Drive-The tilted shot of Driver in the motel room, wielding the shotgun with blood all over his face - Evil Dead-The Driver himself - The Terminator

I wouldn't necessarily say those are explicit references, but they were definitely impressions I got, and drawing those types of connections is not something I normally do when watching a film.

That's interesting about the Star of David. I didn't notice that, but I bet it was intentional.

As for the suit, besides all the other reasons it's ridiculous it's kind of hard to prove any sort of anti-Semitic discrimination. It would be funny if part of their case was "Just look at the name of that guy who wrote it! You know HE'S a racist!"

As for the kosher butchering of Bryan Cranston, maybe they can tone down the kosherness of it by digitally inserting some prawns on his dead body to show that he is being served on the same plate as shelfish. Throw some bacon on his head too.

wikipedia wrote:James Sallis, author of the original Drive novel, has written a sequel titled Driven, which is scheduled to be published in April 2012.[95] Director Nicolas Winding Refn has expressed interest in filming a sequel, saying: "The character is born, he's out there, he transforms himself completely into what he's meant to be, he was always meant to be this… He goes on to more and new adventure[s]."Refn further says that he intends the sequel to feature two drivers, one of them a villain counterpart to Ryan Gosling's character, comparing the new driver to Lex Luthor and Professor Moriarty.[96] Gosling also expressed interest in starring in a sequel, saying that he would "love to make a Drive 2" but that he "[doesn't] want to make the same movie" again.

The first novel definitely sets up a series. It ends with a CONAN type of send off saying that Driver would one day die getting shot in a Tijuana bar, but that many more adventures awaits him between now and then.

So I read the novel sequel to Drive, titled Driven and I would rather that if they make a film sequel, they just come up with a different story.

I don't think the story from Driven would jive well with the way they adapted the first novel into film form because of the way they turned the story into more of a romance between Driver and Mulligan's character which wasn't the focus of the novel. The story of Driven is that Driver's sweetheart is killed when hitmen ambush them. Driver kills the hitmen and more and more hitmen keep tracking him down. It turns out that the first hitmen were hired by the father of Blanche (the character played by Christina Hendricks in DRIVE). When Blanche dies in the first novel, her father looks into the circumstances of her death and finds out Driver was with her and blames Driver. So he wants Driver to experience the death of a loved one and hires hitmen to kill Driver's sweetheart. Driver kills those hitmen, so they send more hitmen to avenge the previous hitmen, and when Driver keeps taking down more and more pro hitmen the gangsters realize they are dealing with the same guy who killed Mr. Rose (Albert Brooks) and Nino (Ron Pearlman), who were both part of their syndicate. And mafias don't let it slide when you kill two of their made men.

So if they do make a sequel, I'd rather just a new crime heist caper thing, because I don't think this story of Driven was all that gripping nor do I think it would really work as a sequel to the first film because of how they adapted it.

I believe what Quint is trying to say is that it feels like a Nicolas Winding Refn movie, and Drive is the only one of those he's seen, because those car crashes were like super-cool and awesome.

...sorry, that's kind of mean. He did make a trilogy before, so I guess it's not totally out of the realm of possibility. But if it feels "sort of" like a semi-sequel to some movie that some guy directed, that's probably just because the same guy directed it.

Well, to be fair Quint does articulate that it features the same lead actor as the same silent-but-deadly loner type in the neon-lit criminal underworld. Calling it a spiritual sequel doesn't feel that offbase to me.

Refn has made several crime movies, but in my opinion the PUSHER trilogy had a very different feel compared to DRIVE. DRIVE employed way more stylistic devices (most involving girlie pop music) and had more pulpy archetypes and a more obvious moral code. BRONSON was also a crime movie, but a very different beast altogether. It was more a portrait of madness whereas DRIVE and the PUSHER movies could be called thrillers.

NELLIE ANDREEVA wrote:After bringing Hannibal to the small screen with an upcoming NBC series, Gaumont International Television and producer Martha De Laurentiis are looking to do the same for another iconic character, Barbarella. GIT, the U.S.-based production and distribution arm of European feature studio Gaumont, is teaming with De Laurentiis and Drive director Nicolas Refn for a TV series that will be based on the character created by Jean-Claude Forest in a graphic novel and made famous in the 1968 sci-fi movie staring Jane Fonda as a sexpot tasked with finding and stopping the evil weapons inventor. Refn will direct and executive produce the series alongside De Laurentiis, whose late husband Dino produced the 1968 movie. Co-executive producers are Jean-Claude Forest’s son Julien Forest and Hollywood Comics principal Jean-Marc Lofficier.

Refn called Barbarella “one of the ultimate counter-cultural characters.” Added GIT CEO Katie O’Connell, “We are thrilled to have secured the rights from the Forest estate and are thrilled to be pairing the bold visceral style of Nicolas Refn with the pop culture icon Barbarella.” In addition to Bryan Fuller’s Hannibal starring Hugh Dancy and Mads Mikkelsen, GIT also is producing the upcoming Eli Roth series Hemlock Grove starring Famke Janssen and Bill Skarsgard for Netflix. Gaumont is producing two of Refn’s next feature films, including Only God Forgives starring Ryan Gosling. He is with WME, Annonymous and Independent Talent Group. Dino and Martha De Laurentiis originally acquired film rights to Barbarella in 2007. Dino was working on a feature Barbarella remake before his 2010 death; the project attracted a slew of directors and young actress but ultimately didn’t take flight.

Saw that BRONSON the other day. A decent enough film that could've been better without the artsy-fartsy stuff. I have now seen three of this Refn's films and he definitely seems to be a style over substance kind of guy. But the kind of style over substance that also thinks it has substance. Nice to look at, but really they think a bit too much of themselves these movies.

This movie is only ninety minutes like VALHALLA RISING and has very nicely composed shots and good use of music and builds up to nothing and just ends, but unlike VALHALLA RISING this was actually entertaining. I'm gonna give most of the credit to Tom Hardy, though. He is funny and convincing in a role that mostly requires him to be nude while yelling "cunt" and having a mustache. The film suffers I think for trying to be goofy with the bits where Bronson is talking to an imaginary audience and dressing up like a clown for no reason. I think a more conventional approach would have been better. The actual Bronson is much more interesting than the film presents without having to resort to that kind of nonsense. So basically this whole endeavor was a failure.

VALHALLA RISING is truly one of the worst films in recent memory (opinion [also fact]).

Bloo wrote:Man I though you'd like Bronson, I really liked it, I haven't seen Valhalla yet

I thought I said I did like it, but maybe I'm wrong.

It was entertaining but a tad...I really don't want to use "pretentious" because that's probably the wrong word. What is like pretentious but isn't? "Artsy-fartsy" is as close as I could get and that sounds pretty dumb. It didn't really seem to have anything to say and wasn't moving in any particular direction. I mean the climax of the film is Bronson beating up some people, which is all he does for the whole movie. And that's it. That's all there is. You could probably swap most any scenes around and end up with the same result. Except more non-linear and artsy-fartsy. How bold. How exciting.

So in closing I liked it, but I would have preferred a more straightforward take on the material, without the nudges and winks.

It felt a lot like DRIVE but with a more playful spirit and a lead actor with charisma.

VALHALLA RISING is dog slop. Just total crap. I will die speaking these words: "VALHALLA RISING, I still feel, was utter shit. Give my corneas to Jenny."

Bloo wrote:Man I though you'd like Bronson, I really liked it, I haven't seen Valhalla yet

I thought I said I did like it, but maybe I'm wrong.

It was entertaining but a tad...I really don't want to use "pretentious" because that's probably the wrong word. What is like pretentious but isn't? "Artsy-fartsy" is as close as I could get and that sounds pretty dumb. It didn't really seem to have anything to say and wasn't moving in any particular direction. I mean the climax of the film is Bronson beating up some people, which is all he does for the whole movie. And that's it. That's all there is. You could probably swap most any scenes around and end up with the same result. Except more non-linear and artsy-fartsy. How bold. How exciting.

So in closing I liked it, but I would have preferred a more straightforward take on the material, without the nudges and winks.

It felt a lot like DRIVE but with a more playful spirit and a lead actor with charisma.

VALHALLA RISING is dog slop. Just total crap. I will die speaking these words: "VALHALLA RISING, I still feel, was utter shit. Give my corneas to Jenny."

maybe I read you wrong. I see your points, and agree with them, but man do I like me some Bronson

Bloo wrote:Man I though you'd like Bronson, I really liked it, I haven't seen Valhalla yet

I thought I said I did like it, but maybe I'm wrong.

It was entertaining but a tad...I really don't want to use "pretentious" because that's probably the wrong word. What is like pretentious but isn't? "Artsy-fartsy" is as close as I could get and that sounds pretty dumb. It didn't really seem to have anything to say and wasn't moving in any particular direction. I mean the climax of the film is Bronson beating up some people, which is all he does for the whole movie. And that's it. That's all there is. You could probably swap most any scenes around and end up with the same result. Except more non-linear and artsy-fartsy. How bold. How exciting.

So in closing I liked it, but I would have preferred a more straightforward take on the material, without the nudges and winks.

It felt a lot like DRIVE but with a more playful spirit and a lead actor with charisma.

VALHALLA RISING is dog slop. Just total crap. I will die speaking these words: "VALHALLA RISING, I still feel, was utter shit. Give my corneas to Jenny."

maybe I read you wrong. I see your points, and agree with them, but man do I like me some Bronson

I would definitely watch it before I'd watch, say, DRIVE. And I own DRIVE.

caruso_stalker217 wrote:Saw that BRONSON the other day. A decent enough film that could've been better without the artsy-fartsy stuff. I have now seen three of this Refn's films and he definitely seems to be a style over substance kind of guy. But the kind of style over substance that also thinks it has substance. Nice to look at, but really they think a bit too much of themselves these movies.

I would agree that DRIVE was all about style for style's sake.

I would argue that the stylistic devices in BRONSON were there to get us inside the character's mentality. All that stuff with Bronson doing his one man show was there to show us how he sees violence as his artform. And in my opinion, that stuff helped break up the monotony of what would've just been a full movie of nude punching.

I think Refn's PUSHER movies were much more character driven and grounded in reality, and Refn called less attention to himself in those ones. They're decent films, but I wouldn't tell you rush out and see them. I don't think they'll blow you away.

I just asked my friend from the future, and she says that ONLY GOD FORGIVES won't really change your opinion on Refn as being more of a stylist, but I will love it.